If you want to discover what kind of people atheists are, scroll down to my recent posts and read the responses. I am a troll. I am a cretin. I am a moron. I am a nut-job. And so on. For those who go beyond abuse, there is shrieking complaint. How dare you suggest atheists weren't around when this happened? How can you say atheists don't have feelings? How can you exploit this tragedy in this way? How come your God didn't prevent this, huh?
Actually my point was a simple one, and it seems to be unrefuted. Atheism seems to have nothing to say to people when there is serious bereavement or tragedy. Of course atheists have feelings and there were undoubtedly atheists among the mourners at Virginia Tech. But the Richard Dawkins philosophy--that we live in a meaningless world where there is no good and no evil--whatever its intellectual merit, seems arid and unconsoling when human beings are really hurting.
One atheist wrote to say that rather than rely on idle promises of fantasies of life after death, what atheists would say is that we need gun control laws and a better health care system. Fair enough, but is this what you tell a crying mother? "Madam, you should feel much better because new gun control laws and mental health reforms are on their way."
I wonder if the abuse that atheists heap on people when their ideas are questioned is indicative of a deeper malady. Atheists like to portray themselves as devotees of reason, but read the responses and see how much reason you discover there. Rather, it looks like these fellows hate God, and this hate spills over to anyone who brings up God's name. Call it the atheism of revenge. They blame God for screwing them over in some way, and unbelief is their form of payback.
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 8)
46. Dinesh D'Souza writes: "Actually my point was a simple one, and it seems to be unrefuted. Atheism seems to have nothing to say to people when there is serious bereavement or tragedy."
Atheism doesn't say anything. Atheism doesn't talk. But I talk, and I'm an atheist. I try to comfort people when bad things happen. And I'm often successful.
But whether "atheism seems to have nothing to say to people when there is serious bereavement or tragedy" is irrelevant to whether D'Souza or I an warranted in inferring that there are no Gods. For example, my belief that there is no Tooth Fairy doesn't help people much when they could use some comfort. But I'm still quite sure that there is no Tooth Fairy.
Either there are one or more Gods. Or there aren't any. And it seems very probable that there aren't any. I don't know of any event that has been caused by a God. And I'm quite sure that trillions of events have been caused by events other than the acts of Gods. Analogously, I don't know of any event that has been caused by a Tooth Fairy, and I know of trillions of events that have been caused by events other than the acts of Tooth Fairies. And I'm quite sure that there aren't any Tooth Fairies.
Wes at 12:10PM on Apr 21st 2007
47. D'Souza wrote: "But the Richard Dawkins philosophy--that we live in a meaningless world where there is no good and no evil--whatever its intellectual merit, seems arid and unconsoling when human beings are really hurting."
Maybe it seems "arid and unconsoling when human
beings are really hurting." But hundreds of millions of people don't believe in God, and most of them do okay when bad things happen. There are hundreds of millions of atheists in the world. There are probably tens of millions in China alone. Here is a link:
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50A11FB3C550C778CDDAA0894DF404482If
My experience is that, on average, atheists do no worse than theists at coping with tragic events. But even if atheists, on average, are not as good at coping with tragic events, this is irrelevant to whether I'm warranted in inferring that there is or is not a God.
Wes at 12:33PM on Apr 21st 2007
48. That link doesn't work. But here is a quote by a recent New York Times article on atheism on China:
"A recent poll by East China Normal University estimated that 31.4 percent of Chinese 16 or older are religious, putting the number of believers at roughly 400 million.
"In recent years, official estimates have placed the number of believers at around 100 million, but the fact that the new survey's results were not only made public but were also reported by the government-controlled Chinese news media suggests that the survey has been given at least some official credence."
Wes at 12:36PM on Apr 21st 2007
49. My heart is all a flutter waiting for Dinesh's blog entry after Fred Phelps and his Westboro Traveling Baptist Freak show attends the funerals and dispenses some of its own brand of "Christian love and comfort."
If he doesn't give them equal space, would I be justified in thinking Dinesh to be a hypocrite? Or do they get a pass because they call themselves Christians? After all, he excoriates atheists for being "absent," but there will be a contingent of self-proclaimed Christians there oozing with the milk of human kindness.
This is a link to Fred's group's website. Take a moment and visit and just feel the love and compassion...
http://www.godhatesamerica.com/
Isaac at 12:48PM on Apr 21st 2007
50. Let's say Joe has just lost a loved one in a tragic event. Let's say I go up to Joe and say: "Your wife has ceased to exist. She no longer is. That is it for her. It is overwhelmingly probable that there is no afterlife. I'm sorry." My saying this probably would not help Joe feel better. In fact, it may be unethical for me to go up to Joe and tell him this. But that my saying this may be unethical doesn't make it unethical for me to believe that there is no afterlife. First, I don't have to tell a person that I don't believe in an afterlife. Second, there is good reason to believe that there is not an afterlife. And holding a belief that is reasonable tends to be an ethical act. For instance, let’s say that if I believed that I have been abducted by aliens, it would make it so that I wasn’t depressed. It is still good for me to believe that I have not been abducted by aliens.
Wes at 1:02PM on Apr 21st 2007
51. I agree with Wes. The only thing atheism says is "I have no belief in god".
D'Souza is simply equivocating what atheism says to what atheists say, and using this tragedy as an opportunity to disparage his intellectual adversaries.
Mr. D'Souza, you are an embarrassment to the right and, frankly, to humanity. Your entire argument is "Ha ha! Atheists don't say your kid is going to heaven to make you feel better! Neener-neener-neener!"
It's absolutely the most vapid, insulting, and crass remark you could have chosen, and by asking where the athsist were, you directed it squarely at the victims of this massacre. Where are the atheists? Some of them are in Virgina grieving with everyone else. That you do not understand why your remarks are so offensive and hurtful is truly astonsishing. Are you so out of touch with humanity that you can't even see what you've done?
You are as deluded as Cho if you think that this is a reasonable, (much less than compassionate) response to this tragedy. I think you seriously need to sit down and re-evaluate your priorities. And by that I mean do some serious soul-searching.
Your efforts to back-track into "All I meant was that atheists...I mean atheism... can't offer consolation" is a pathetic and transparent lie. That isn't "all" you meant and you know it. The fact that you will neither admit it nor apologize for it is an indication of how badly misaligned your own moral compass is.
And no, I don't hope you rot in hell or anything like that. I'm an atheist, so eternal revenge is not something I think happens to people. Nor am I in the habit of wishing eternal unhappiness on others. I just hope you see your actions like I do someday. I hope that you would understand how crass and insulting they are. And ultimately how childish and paltry they are in the face of this horror.
Leni at 1:16PM on Apr 21st 2007
52. I'm Romani, and I don't believe. Are you going to damn my people for my disbelief? Because I don't believe, does that automatically mean that I hate your god and want revenge on it?
What about Jews? I'm guessing that they really believe Jesus is the Messiah, but they're so angry at him, that they'd dare not admit it.
How about blacks? They don't believe in white supremacy, not because it's a bad thing, but because it's just too painful to accept.
How about rape? As John Petroski puts it, "Rape only hurts if you fight it." Maybe we should just start saying, "Christianity only hurts if you fight it." Spread your legs and take gods' rod of discipline. Get on your knees for Jesus.
It's what you were made for.
Ryan at 2:05PM on Apr 21st 2007
53.
Somehow I get the feeling Fred Phelps will not get the same treatment as us damned atheists when he's parked outside these kids' funerals with a megaphone shouting at the parents about how God killed their children because they lost their way. What a consoling message that will be, I'm sure the parents will feel much better when they hear it.
Peter at 2:10PM on Apr 21st 2007
54. So is your point that atheism is sometimes less emotionally satisfying when bad things happen? This might be true, but it wouldn't bother me much if it is. We could easily devise any number of belief systems that would appeal to our emotions, and that wouldn't necessarily make them reasonable. The killer - bad karma for this life? Reborn as a gnat? Eternal separation from god(s)? Boiling oil in another life applied by his victims? I'm sure we could think of a number of worldviews that might give catharsis - if that's the basis of your complaint, that your weltanschauung gives you more emotional relief than secular perspectives, it's not much of a criticism.
Pat Gunn at 2:18PM on Apr 21st 2007
55. I don't hate God. I simply do not believe he exists. In turn, I believe dinosaurs existed 230 million years ago. I believe in evolution. I believe humans were once primates. And I also believe some still are.
My "unbelief," as you so secularly put it, certainly doesn't mean I do not greive for the families, friends and victims whose lives were changed by the violents acts of last Monday, because I do.
TraeHova at 2:19PM on Apr 21st 2007
56. Dear Mr. D'Souza,
Have you actually read Dawkins' books? I mean sat and carefully read them, taken notes, thought through the implications, arguments, etc.? I ask because you are misrepresenting his ideas and opinions. So I conclude you haven't read his books and are commenting on things you only know second hand or you are deliberately misleading your readers about what Mr. Dawkins has to say.
Your argument isn't logical anyway. Let's say that the universe is meaningless. There is no God. It doesn't follow that humans can find no meaning in their lives. Friendship, intellectual pursuit, music, art, athletics, family, love, charity, teaching--all of these things have meaning independent of a God. Anyone can create a rich and full life without religion. Only people who are unable to think critically and judge for themselves need a god (or gods) to provide them with a meaningful purpose in life.
And by the way, it doesn't take religion to comfort people. All it takes is a friend who cares and knows how to make you laugh and feel better.
Reefs
Josh at 3:22PM on Apr 21st 2007
57. The question one asks who wants to know the truth is not "what's in it for me if I believe?" But that's the question underlying most apologetics for belief in God. It's explicit in Pascal's Wager, but most of the time it's implicit, as in this case.
In an article apparently intended to support theism and oppose atheism, D'Souza is saying that, under some circumstances, believing in God can make people feel better. How could that be relevant unless D'Souza's criterion for deciding what to believe is "what's in it for me?"
Anybody who values truth must see this for what it is: intellectual corruption.
David Canzi at 3:47PM on Apr 21st 2007
58. Dinesh,
Once again your post has nothing to do with whether religion is true or not. It appears that you have little value for the truth so long as a lie provides comfort during difficult times. Is this any way to live? Should we hide ourselves beneath the fantasies of false comfort and delusion because the real-world does not present the picture we want to see? I personally disagree with how you are using this tragedy to further your own agenda. Whereas others are asking, how can I lend a hand and make this better, you are asking where are all the atheist at? We are beside you in this hour or grief, but you refuse to acknowledge us simply because it does not sit well with your unsuppourted beliefs regarding atheism. The mere fact that you are arguing for religion based upon whether or not it feels good rather than if its true is quite telling.
So what if the universe does not give our lives meaning? Why should we beg the universe for meaning in the first place? Are we so weak-willed and ill-natured as to not be able to give our own lives meaning?
The fact is people already have the strength to get through difficult times, they merely attribute it to a religion and/or a God. Perhaps it's a lack of confidence in themselves that perpetuates this myth that without God people can not make it through difficult times. Or maybe it's not that believers lack confidence in themselves, but that they would rather not take responsibility for their own strength. If you attribute your strength to somebody else, you're not responsible for your moments of weakness. Whatever the reason may be that people fail to recognize their own strength, there is no reason to suggest that society needs to continue an unsuppourted belief.
The Alpha at 3:55PM on Apr 21st 2007
59. Atheists and Agnostics
IT WOULD TAKE MORE FAITH TO BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE MORAL STANDARDS THAN IT DOES TO BELIEVE IN GOD! If you don't believe that we are accountable to the things that we do and the life that we live, or that there is neither good or evil, those of us who believe in God would view you by implication as those who survive as being the fitests. That means that you would do what anyone operating by animal instinct would do to survive or have your own way. That would make you amoral at best and immoral at worst.
It would be in the carnal best interest of such people to say or do whatever they feel they can get away with to advance their own agendas. Of course you would say that you were trustworthy or even call yourselves Christians if it suits your purpose at the time; wolves in sheeps clothing so to speak.
Amazingly it is scientifically illogical not to believe in God with all of the amazing works in nature and the order and coorperating functions of one single living organism. There is sufficient historical and scientific emperical evidence to believe in God, and there is also enough evidence to justify not trusting nor believing the corrupt infiltrating words of the Atheists.
dalosophy at 4:19PM on Apr 21st 2007
60.
Wow, someone got inside your head and rearranged the furniture didn't they?
Peter at 4:32PM on Apr 21st 2007